DRUNK IN CAR

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 297, 28 September 1935, Page 3

DRUNK IN CAR

WOMAN CONVICTED BY JUSTICES

MR ANSELL CORRECTS AN IMPRESSION.

(Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 27

In a lecent speech at Dunedin, Mr A. E. Ansell, M.P., criticised the decision of a Court where a woman who was found guilty of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car was fined, hut her name suppressed. Mr Ansell, in a statement to-day, remarked that he was correctly reported in Dunedin, but the telegraphed summary of liis remarks published in other newspapers indicated that in his criticism he had inferred that tie case had been heard before a Magistrate. “This,” continued Mr Ansell, “is not a correct interpretation of my remarks, as I knew, when making my statement, that- the case was heard before two Justices of the Peace. I therefore made no reference whatever to a Magistrate. It was obvious that the Press Association message has unintentionally attributed to me a statement. which inflicts injustice upon the Magistrate of the district concerned, anti it is my wish that this explanation sliould receive the same amount of publicity as the telegraphed message. “It is definitely my opinion that cases of this nature should be heard only before Magistrates, as they have the necessary training and experience which enable them to deal more equitably with the difficult questions often arising in such cases, where the evidence is frequently technically difficult, particularly on the point of degree of intoxication, where even medical views are sometimes conflicting. “I have ascertained that in certain districts general instructions are given by the Stipendiary Magistrate that all these cases must be heard by a Magistrate and that in the event of it being necessary to take preliminary steps the case should be adjourned for final decision by a Magistrate. If this procedure, which I approve, had been adopted in the case I referred to, there could have been no grounds for my criticism.”